NYC Hate Crimes hit Jews harder than other groups combined in 2018

[Antiboyscout]

This is just excusing double standards.

Then call it like you see it. Really. Don't let people judge you unfairly. But this double standard isn't some grand stilted narrative to inflate hostility on a one way street.

The overall goal is to expose systemic forms of racism. Hostility from the dominant culture is much more telling of that than the other way around. Again, if it's only about individuals behaviors between each other than that'd be something, but there's a shit ton more to say on a collective level about uneven circumstances which itself is proportionately reflective double standard as far as what you're talking about.

What dominant culture? Cultural rules right now are dominated by a tiny group walking around shooting the losers of the culture war and putting the fear into their own side

Would you please elucidate exactly what you mean by the phrase "shooting the losers of the culture war"? I'm guessing you don't mean literally putting bullets into people but beyond that I'm utterly perplexed.

I think(?) he means people that don't have any stake in identity politics.

They have finally achieved enough power to unperson someone by telling banks and PayPal not to do business with them and ruining their livelihood

[Karha of Honor]

This is just excusing double standards.

Then call it like you see it. Really. Don't let people judge you unfairly. But this double standard isn't some grand stilted narrative to inflate hostility on a one way street.

The overall goal is to expose systemic forms of racism. Hostility from the dominant culture is much more telling of that than the other way around. Again, if it's only about individuals behaviors between each other than that'd be something, but there's a shit ton more to say on a collective level about uneven circumstances which itself is proportionately reflective double standard as far as what you're talking about.

What dominant culture? Cultural rules right now are dominated by a tiny group walking around shooting the losers of the culture war and putting the fear into their own side

Would you please elucidate exactly what you mean by the phrase "shooting the losers of the culture war"? I'm guessing you don't mean literally putting bullets into people but beyond that I'm utterly perplexed.

Progressives have the ability to shame people out of existence much more than any other group. They utterly have won the Culture War.

I think(?) he means people that don't have any stake in identity politics.

What?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

What?

It's more or less what you were saying.

[Darth Wedgius]

I'm not going to argue over the semantics of what racism means. I'll just ignore people saying it means "bigotry + power," because they don't get to define that any more than I do.

I will say that I consider racism as I define it to be equally wrong no matter the target. I don't care about the historical context. If blacks want to get together to look for and try to redress where they are being discriminated against, that's fine. Same for whites, asians, jews, christians, muslims, men, women, left-handers, right-handers, and people who like Dr. Pepper. But the moment when a group demands something other than equality of opportunity and equal treatment under the law, they're racist / sexist / religion-supremacist / Pepperist. If you want people of different races to be treated equally, then you can't, by definition, have special treatment for some.

People can blather on about "white privilege" as much as they want, but nobody gave me anything for being white, so the only thing "white privilege" is good for is for showing me who not tot take seriously.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I'm not going to argue over the semantics of what racism means. I'll just ignore people saying it means "bigotry + power," because they don't get to define that any more than I do.

I will say that I consider racism as I define it to be equally wrong no matter the target. I don't care about the historical context. If blacks want to get together to look for and try to redress where they are being discriminated against, that's fine. Same for whites, asians, jews, christians, muslims, men, women, left-handers, right-handers, and people who like Dr. Pepper. But the moment when a group demands something other than equality of opportunity and equal treatment under the law, they're racist / sexist / religion-supremacist / Pepperist. If you want people of different races to be treated equally, then you can't, by definition, have special treatment for some.

People can blather on about "white privilege" as much as they want, but nobody gave me anything for being white, so the only thing "white privilege" is good for is for showing me who not tot take seriously.

While I can see what you're saying as a bit of a bold statement to make (respectfully speaking as much as you're willing to tolerate), I don't feel I have an agenda to dismantle it with supporting evidence of white privilege or equality of outcome. I do understand the tenants of white privilege, and personally speaking I don't think it's set out to say that your personal condition and background was just gleaming. From there, from what I know of rational minded people that take consideration to what's being said, it's not very hard to understand at all what it's getting at (your post even can be considered to start alluding to it). And at the same time I personally do get the complication that comes out of it. I have issues with how it gets conveyed people, and to be frank I feel like its transcription among other takes of its kind come off as through a lens of postmodernism, which I disagree with in approach but am suffice just understanding what it's saying at least.

If you view all this with Texas Hold'm as a basis for analogy, then it's easy to see where Slash comes off talking about the losers of the culture war. I mean I don't think we really have to play that, but it seems to me that a lot of people do participate through it for some reason then respond in kind by flipping the table over in response. Then again, there aren't technically any stipulated rules when applying this analogy fairly, as in real life it's just people shouting at each other and galvanizing online.

I mean I personally don't feel like I have to play it knowing what I know. That can be viewed through a lense of white privilege or through defense of my personal circumstances, and honestly I'm of the mindset that those are two different things going on at the same time and aren't technically at odds with each other.

[Darth Wedgius]

I'm not going to argue over the semantics of what racism means. I'll just ignore people saying it means "bigotry + power," because they don't get to define that any more than I do.

I will say that I consider racism as I define it to be equally wrong no matter the target. I don't care about the historical context. If blacks want to get together to look for and try to redress where they are being discriminated against, that's fine. Same for whites, asians, jews, christians, muslims, men, women, left-handers, right-handers, and people who like Dr. Pepper. But the moment when a group demands something other than equality of opportunity and equal treatment under the law, they're racist / sexist / religion-supremacist / Pepperist. If you want people of different races to be treated equally, then you can't, by definition, have special treatment for some.

People can blather on about "white privilege" as much as they want, but nobody gave me anything for being white, so the only thing "white privilege" is good for is for showing me who not tot take seriously.

While I can see what you're saying as a bit of a bold statement to make (respectfully speaking as much as you're willing to tolerate), I don't feel I have an agenda to dismantle it with supporting evidence of white privilege or equality of outcome. I do understand the tenants of white privilege, and personally speaking I don't think it's set out to say that your personal condition and background was just gleaming. From there, from what I know of rational minded people that take consideration to what's being said, it's not very hard to understand at all what it's getting at (your post even can be considered to start alluding to it). And at the same time I personally do get the complication that comes out of it. I have issues with how it gets conveyed people, and to be frank I feel like its transcription among other takes of its kind come off as through a lens of postmodernism, which I disagree with in approach but am suffice just understanding what it's saying at least.

If you view all this with Texas Hold'm as a basis for analogy, then it's easy to see where Slash comes off talking about the losers of the culture war. I mean I don't think we really have to play that, but it seems to me that a lot of people do participate through it for some reason then respond in kind by flipping the table over in response. Then again, there aren't technically any stipulated rules when applying this analogy fairly, as in real life it's just people shouting at each other and galvanizing online.

I mean I personally don't feel like I have to play it knowing what I know. That can be viewed through a lense of white privilege or through defense of my personal circumstances, and honestly I'm of the mindset that those are two different things going on at the same time and aren't technically at odds with each other.

I didn't mention "gleaming" anywhere. I said nobody did me any favors for being white. AFAIK, nobody I know has been done any favors because they were white. I'm sure that happens sometimes, but I supposedly have white privilege for being white. It's a very odd kind of privilege that doesn't do anything for the people it's supposed to be privileging.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I'm not going to argue over the semantics of what racism means. I'll just ignore people saying it means "bigotry + power," because they don't get to define that any more than I do.

I will say that I consider racism as I define it to be equally wrong no matter the target. I don't care about the historical context. If blacks want to get together to look for and try to redress where they are being discriminated against, that's fine. Same for whites, asians, jews, christians, muslims, men, women, left-handers, right-handers, and people who like Dr. Pepper. But the moment when a group demands something other than equality of opportunity and equal treatment under the law, they're racist / sexist / religion-supremacist / Pepperist. If you want people of different races to be treated equally, then you can't, by definition, have special treatment for some.

People can blather on about "white privilege" as much as they want, but nobody gave me anything for being white, so the only thing "white privilege" is good for is for showing me who not tot take seriously.

While I can see what you're saying as a bit of a bold statement to make (respectfully speaking as much as you're willing to tolerate), I don't feel I have an agenda to dismantle it with supporting evidence of white privilege or equality of outcome. I do understand the tenants of white privilege, and personally speaking I don't think it's set out to say that your personal condition and background was just gleaming. From there, from what I know of rational minded people that take consideration to what's being said, it's not very hard to understand at all what it's getting at (your post even can be considered to start alluding to it). And at the same time I personally do get the complication that comes out of it. I have issues with how it gets conveyed people, and to be frank I feel like its transcription among other takes of its kind come off as through a lens of postmodernism, which I disagree with in approach but am suffice just understanding what it's saying at least.

If you view all this with Texas Hold'm as a basis for analogy, then it's easy to see where Slash comes off talking about the losers of the culture war. I mean I don't think we really have to play that, but it seems to me that a lot of people do participate through it for some reason then respond in kind by flipping the table over in response. Then again, there aren't technically any stipulated rules when applying this analogy fairly, as in real life it's just people shouting at each other and galvanizing online.

I mean I personally don't feel like I have to play it knowing what I know. That can be viewed through a lense of white privilege or through defense of my personal circumstances, and honestly I'm of the mindset that those are two different things going on at the same time and aren't technically at odds with each other.

I didn't mention "gleaming" anywhere. I said nobody did me any favors for being white. AFAIK, nobody I know has been done any favors because they were white. I'm sure that happens sometimes, but I supposedly have white privilege for being white. It's a very odd kind of privilege that doesn't do anything for the people it's supposed to be privileging.

I don't think it makes too much of a difference if you did or not. It goes towards the same sentiment that white privilege tends generally to determine that white people's circumstance is relatively better. Which just to say the least is a generalization.

Though I do see that you're talking specifically in terms of someone giving you something.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I'm not going to argue over the semantics of what racism means. I'll just ignore people saying it means "bigotry + power," because they don't get to define that any more than I do.

I will say that I consider racism as I define it to be equally wrong no matter the target. I don't care about the historical context. If blacks want to get together to look for and try to redress where they are being discriminated against, that's fine. Same for whites, asians, jews, christians, muslims, men, women, left-handers, right-handers, and people who like Dr. Pepper. But the moment when a group demands something other than equality of opportunity and equal treatment under the law, they're racist / sexist / religion-supremacist / Pepperist. If you want people of different races to be treated equally, then you can't, by definition, have special treatment for some.

People can blather on about "white privilege" as much as they want, but nobody gave me anything for being white, so the only thing "white privilege" is good for is for showing me who not tot take seriously.

While I can see what you're saying as a bit of a bold statement to make (respectfully speaking as much as you're willing to tolerate), I don't feel I have an agenda to dismantle it with supporting evidence of white privilege or equality of outcome. I do understand the tenants of white privilege, and personally speaking I don't think it's set out to say that your personal condition and background was just gleaming. From there, from what I know of rational minded people that take consideration to what's being said, it's not very hard to understand at all what it's getting at (your post even can be considered to start alluding to it). And at the same time I personally do get the complication that comes out of it. I have issues with how it gets conveyed people, and to be frank I feel like its transcription among other takes of its kind come off as through a lens of postmodernism, which I disagree with in approach but am suffice just understanding what it's saying at least.

If you view all this with Texas Hold'm as a basis for analogy, then it's easy to see where Slash comes off talking about the losers of the culture war. I mean I don't think we really have to play that, but it seems to me that a lot of people do participate through it for some reason then respond in kind by flipping the table over in response. Then again, there aren't technically any stipulated rules when applying this analogy fairly, as in real life it's just people shouting at each other and galvanizing online.

I mean I personally don't feel like I have to play it knowing what I know. That can be viewed through a lense of white privilege or through defense of my personal circumstances, and honestly I'm of the mindset that those are two different things going on at the same time and aren't technically at odds with each other.

I didn't mention "gleaming" anywhere. I said nobody did me any favors for being white. AFAIK, nobody I know has been done any favors because they were white. I'm sure that happens sometimes, but I supposedly have white privilege for being white. It's a very odd kind of privilege that doesn't do anything for the people it's supposed to be privileging.

White Privilege doesn't mean you get things for free, it just means there are certain forms of bullshit you Aren't subjected to.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

This is just excusing double standards.

Then call it like you see it. Really. Don't let people judge you unfairly. But this double standard isn't some grand stilted narrative to inflate hostility on a one way street.

The overall goal is to expose systemic forms of racism. Hostility from the dominant culture is much more telling of that than the other way around. Again, if it's only about individuals behaviors between each other than that'd be something, but there's a shit ton more to say on a collective level about uneven circumstances which itself is proportionately reflective double standard as far as what you're talking about.

What dominant culture? Cultural rules right now are dominated by a tiny group walking around shooting the losers of the culture war and putting the fear into their own side

Would you please elucidate exactly what you mean by the phrase "shooting the losers of the culture war"? I'm guessing you don't mean literally putting bullets into people but beyond that I'm utterly perplexed.

Progressives have the ability to shame people out of existence much more than any other group. They utterly have won the Culture War.

I'm pretty sure that the mere act of shaming doesn't obliterate people from the timeline, and lots of people that progressives heap shame on are thriving, so again, you really need to spell out what the klorbag you mean.

[Darth Wedgius]

I'm not going to argue over the semantics of what racism means. I'll just ignore people saying it means "bigotry + power," because they don't get to define that any more than I do.

I will say that I consider racism as I define it to be equally wrong no matter the target. I don't care about the historical context. If blacks want to get together to look for and try to redress where they are being discriminated against, that's fine. Same for whites, asians, jews, christians, muslims, men, women, left-handers, right-handers, and people who like Dr. Pepper. But the moment when a group demands something other than equality of opportunity and equal treatment under the law, they're racist / sexist / religion-supremacist / Pepperist. If you want people of different races to be treated equally, then you can't, by definition, have special treatment for some.

People can blather on about "white privilege" as much as they want, but nobody gave me anything for being white, so the only thing "white privilege" is good for is for showing me who not tot take seriously.

While I can see what you're saying as a bit of a bold statement to make (respectfully speaking as much as you're willing to tolerate), I don't feel I have an agenda to dismantle it with supporting evidence of white privilege or equality of outcome. I do understand the tenants of white privilege, and personally speaking I don't think it's set out to say that your personal condition and background was just gleaming. From there, from what I know of rational minded people that take consideration to what's being said, it's not very hard to understand at all what it's getting at (your post even can be considered to start alluding to it). And at the same time I personally do get the complication that comes out of it. I have issues with how it gets conveyed people, and to be frank I feel like its transcription among other takes of its kind come off as through a lens of postmodernism, which I disagree with in approach but am suffice just understanding what it's saying at least.

If you view all this with Texas Hold'm as a basis for analogy, then it's easy to see where Slash comes off talking about the losers of the culture war. I mean I don't think we really have to play that, but it seems to me that a lot of people do participate through it for some reason then respond in kind by flipping the table over in response. Then again, there aren't technically any stipulated rules when applying this analogy fairly, as in real life it's just people shouting at each other and galvanizing online.

I mean I personally don't feel like I have to play it knowing what I know. That can be viewed through a lense of white privilege or through defense of my personal circumstances, and honestly I'm of the mindset that those are two different things going on at the same time and aren't technically at odds with each other.

I didn't mention "gleaming" anywhere. I said nobody did me any favors for being white. AFAIK, nobody I know has been done any favors because they were white. I'm sure that happens sometimes, but I supposedly have white privilege for being white. It's a very odd kind of privilege that doesn't do anything for the people it's supposed to be privileging.

I don't think it makes too much of a difference if you did or not. It goes towards the same sentiment that white privilege tends generally to determine that white people's circumstance is relatively better. Which just to say the least is a generalization.

Though I do see that you're talking specifically in terms of someone giving you something.

What are white people being given to make their circumstances better? And why does it work better for asians or Ashkenazi Jews, both of who do better in economic, educational, and criminal statistics than white people do?